Black Kite (talk | contribs) →Oppose: + |
→Oppose: re |
||
Line 499: | Line 499: | ||
# '''Oppose''', Strange, though I agree with much of what iridescent write; my conclusions are the opposite. Pr Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, regretfully oppose, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''', Strange, though I agree with much of what iridescent write; my conclusions are the opposite. Pr Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, regretfully oppose, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
# '''Strongly oppose''' I had several strange and very unpleasant run-ins with MontanaBW. She is highly proprietary about Montana historical articles, with a very heavy hand on the delete button, especially if it disturbs her political sensibilities. The idea that a political conservative like me could add details on cattlemen was unacceptable. That was bad enough, but it escalated out of control twice. Here on Wikipedia she made slashing personal attacks on me in Sept. 2013 at [[[Talk:Labor unions in the United States]]. I complained to ANI when she called me a liar, alleging I falsified my connection to Montana State University (she did not notice I was listed on the MSU website. (For the record then and now I am an official Research Professor of History at Montana State U--Billings). Then in summer 2014 I was involved in a Montana State University Library project: a one-day training program for newbies on how to edit Wikipedia. She immediately for no reason erased the first efforts by a leading expert from the Montana historical society who was attending this workshop and was adding material on the fur trade an area of his specialty. She demanded and threatened to be admitted to the closed workshop. The library director alerted campus security to keep her out (the good news is that she never showed). [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
# '''Strongly oppose''' I had several strange and very unpleasant run-ins with MontanaBW. She is highly proprietary about Montana historical articles, with a very heavy hand on the delete button, especially if it disturbs her political sensibilities. The idea that a political conservative like me could add details on cattlemen was unacceptable. That was bad enough, but it escalated out of control twice. Here on Wikipedia she made slashing personal attacks on me in Sept. 2013 at [[[Talk:Labor unions in the United States]]. I complained to ANI when she called me a liar, alleging I falsified my connection to Montana State University (she did not notice I was listed on the MSU website. (For the record then and now I am an official Research Professor of History at Montana State U--Billings). Then in summer 2014 I was involved in a Montana State University Library project: a one-day training program for newbies on how to edit Wikipedia. She immediately for no reason erased the first efforts by a leading expert from the Montana historical society who was attending this workshop and was adding material on the fur trade an area of his specialty. She demanded and threatened to be admitted to the closed workshop. The library director alerted campus security to keep her out (the good news is that she never showed). [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
#:Rjensen, I would say have to say that your version of events likely borders on fantasy. The irony of you complaining about others having a "heavy hand on the delete button" does not go unnoticed, considering you always delete/revert, and rarely if ever discuss first, unless dragged kicking and screaming to the talk page. When you speak of Montana's "political sensibilities", we see a bit of needed honesty from you. Yes, you oppose Montana because her moderate, centrist POV is at odds with your extreme, right-wing POV-pushing. That's true. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
# '''Oppose''' blackballed since forever. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''' blackballed since forever. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
# '''Oppose''' per evidence above, ownership and battleground issues rule this request out. [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''' per evidence above, ownership and battleground issues rule this request out. [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:39, 19 September 2015
Montanabw
(talk page) (97/44/6); Scheduled to end 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Nomination
Montanabw (talk · contribs) – Montanabw is a longstanding member of the community with a plethora of great content contributions under her belt. She has been editing since 2006, has been an Autopatroller since 2010, and has that currently fashionable combination of a clear need for the tools and audited content. If you check through her talkpage and other talk contributions it is easy to find examples of people asking her advice or collaborating with her. In several ways she is already functioning as an administrator - high time we gave her the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw is a long-time Wikipedian who has created quite a bit of featured content, where she has a good track record of collaborative work with other editors. She's an experienced DYK nominator as well, and has expressed an interest in helping out with admin tasks there. Her work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI will help her know how to check material in the DYK queue for copyvio. While her past has not been completely drama-free, she has a clean block log and a deep commitment to the project. She's a mature person who is intelligent, capable, and willing to learn. Montanabw would be a very good addition to the admin corps, and could make good use of the tools in her work on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the gracious nomination. I accept. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
ALTERNATE ACCOUNT DISCLOSURES: Per WP:VALIDALT, I have two alternate accounts. The first is User:MontOther, which I created in 2014 as a space for materials I use for testing, training and demonstration purposes. When that one got cluttered up, I created a "vanilla" sample user alternative account with default settings, User:Breadedchicken, in 2015, which I use to show new editors how things look to them when they begin editing and for viewing pages as they appear with default settings. I also changed my original username on this account to Montanabw back in 2006, within my first two months of editing because my first username incorporated part of my real name and I decided not to self-disclose my actual name on-wiki. I believe that the other user name does not appear anywhere on-wiki other than the rename request. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:
- Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
- Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
- Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.
- To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
- Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.
- A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.
- One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.
- A: I have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.
- Additional questions from User:DESiegel
- 4. What is your view of Process is important?
- A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- 5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
- A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- 6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?
- A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- 7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
- A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
- A: It's something I'd like to do. I already enjoy directing traffic and suggesting solutions, as users such as SusunW can probably attest. I've done a little bit of work at DR/N, and found that even when keeping people at the table doesn't settle the dispute, at least no one gets blocked and it keeps the process going until tempers cool. With the mop in hand to calm disputes, one can step in with some authority and help potentially good, enthusiastic new users calm down so they don't get themselves blocked. One can also back off experienced users who should know better.
- From my own experience, I think when there is a disagreement amongst editors who all are trying to edit content (as opposed to vandals NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia), it is important for an admin to first cool down a heated situation, not make a snap decision, and avoid a rush to judgement on any side. Then, even if the admin is forming a pretty clear picture of the situation, giving both sides a fair chance to express their views and then calmly explaining what the guidelines are will solve many problems. Often people start working together once their emotions cool. Even the most contentious editors usually come to the table once they realize that the other side isn't going away. There are always a few intractable situations, but those usually get that way due to user behavior rather than the content dispute at issue. If everyone can remember AGF and NPA, almost all other problems can be solved. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?
- A: CSD#A1 states, in pertinent part, "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles...If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." So first off, I'd see how new the article was, and then do a web search to see if it really occurred. If it was real, and could be expanded, then A1 is not appropriate and Speedy would, appropriately be declined. If it wasn't new, I'd probably still decline CSD#A1 if there was, in fact, enough material to expand the article appropriately. (If I had time, perhaps I'd even do so myself) If the editor who tagged the article for CSD wished to PROD or otherwise suggest deletion, raising an appropriate justification, they could do so and that request would then be reviewed on its own merits. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional questions from RO
- 10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?
- September 12, 2015: ([1])
- August 9, 2015: ([2])
- July 31, 2015: ([3])
- July 20, 2015: ([4])
- February 28, 2015: ([5])
- A: No, I will not. The relevant question for an RfA is if I would block a vandal under a certain set of conditions. And none of these diffs, taken alone, are conclusive for a block, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances involving any particular vandalizing editor. I also see this question is being challenged and discussed below by other editors, so I shall refrain from further comment on this question. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking. If you haven't ever operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other, just state that fact clearly, and please accept my apologies for the tough question, but admins have to be tough. Don't you agree?
- A: I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP. Those cases, therefore, were all presumably examined for evidence of socking or vandalism. I choose not to reveal my RL name or hometown on-wiki, but any number wikipedians know my RL identity and can address any concerns privately with ArbCom or whomever. No, I have never "operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other." That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny. If you believe you have a specific example involving me socking with an IP, please just go ahead and make the accusation with a specific diff so the CU folks can examine it. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO(talk) 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion you are having with other users, below, I suggest that you raise your concerns via appropriate channels and they can email me with your diffs, the IP in question and so on. But for the record, I absolutely have not "concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time." Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO(talk) 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- But beyond that, other RfA reviewers do need to know that you and I have "history," and some of that history does involve me having reasonable cause to suspect that you were socking. Others who looked at the case determined that you were not, User:ItsLassieTime (ILT), though a different ILT sock was uncovered in that time period and my understanding is that you disclosed a previous account privately to ArbCom. As a result of that, I recognized the need to submit Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and that LTA was approved. I learned a lot from the experiences I had with you in that situation and on your original, failed, Irataba FAC that Maunus was kind enough to fix and hope you take pride that the FAC eventually passed and that article has now been TFA. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?
- A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 12b. Above you said, "I forgave [Cyclopia] for acting so abruptly". Will you please explain why you think they were "acting so abruptly"? Here's the duplication report. There are nine hits of 30 words or more verbatim copy-pasted. Were they overreacting, if so why, and how would you react to a finding a similar duplication report in a new user's writing?
- A: Be sure we are clear on the issue, your diff is not the version where the tag occurred. The actual comparison at issue are these two. Your diff is "17:12, February 9, 2007 (Creating article)." That was the very first edit. And yes, in 2007, I did create that article by first copy-pasting the Rutgers content and then copyediting it from there. At the time of that tag I still was working on the article; the diff shows I was down to 6 hits over 30 words, which was still too much material too closely paraphrased, but I was still constructing content. That is definitely not something I'd do today! I think this article was evidence that I learn from my mistakes and become a better editor for the experience. Montanabw(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- What I would do for a current editor similarly situated today, and what I wished that editor would have done at the time, was to have warned me first and not just shut down the article with a huge "scare tag"—it was a new article, there was active work going on. A better approach would have been to notify me of the problem, perhaps with the dup detector results, letting me know that I had too much duplicate phrasing, and emphasize that I needed to fix it pronto, pointing to the appropriate WP policy of the time. I had the article recovered into a sandbox, I fixed the problems, and in less than a day it was reviewed and the new version restored. As I stated, I learned a great deal from that experience and have not made the same mistake since. Montanabw(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from Epicgenius
- 13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?
- A: Because my focus is mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) To expand on this answer, I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop, so while I cannot use the tools where I am WP:INVOLVED, I feel that with the tools comes the responsibility to contribute to the community; just like my work on DYK in doing prep sets tends to correspond with my own DYK submissions, I have a strong ethic that where I ask for something, it is my duty to give back in return. Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Based on comments below, I probably should clarify. As noted above, the areas where I have the most interest are 1) doing queues for DYK (as I have done a lot of prep sets, QPQs and now about 50 DYK noms of my own); 2) Revdel and BLP protection, following policy; and 3) RPP, a place I've had to go quite often, given that I watchlist articles that include asinus, manure, cow tipping and jackalope. In other areas, I would probably help with backlogs and focus on areas where I can be fully neutral in attempting to resolve disputes. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from LynnWysong
- 14. Do you plan to recuse yourself from administering equine articles and generally take a step back from your "stewardship" of them? Whereas I understand you have put a lot of work into this subject, your investment has led to what I and many others believe is a problematic attitude. As far back as 2007 other editors have been commenting on your ownership issues with these articles, and only seven months ago, you came right out and claimed to own one here. This page I think reveals a lot about the issue. The Advice section might as well be retitled: "My rules people must follow to be allowed to edit equine articles." I simply do not see how you could possibly objectively administer issues in this area, and I would think that other editors would be even more discouraged against trying to edit with a "helicopter administrator" weighing in on every edit they make.
- A: Of course I would "step back" from using admin tools where I was WP:INVOLVED! As I stated above, I "get it" about WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; if I'm editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools. WPEQ is one of them. It took some time for you and I to arrive at a place where we could work together in a collaborative fashion (that "forming, norming, storming and performing" thing) but we are working together in a collaborative fashion now and though we certainly don't see eye to eye on the issues, it's slowly making the articles better as we move step-by-step through the process. I look forward to the day when we can jointly nominate Mustang for GAN. If that happens, it will, in my view, be proof positive of the good that Wikipedia can accomplish when people can come together even though they have different views. Montanabw(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- What about the other half of my question, of backing off of the "stewardship?" Do you think that you have an issue here that you should address? Because, even though I have chosen to put aside a lot of the things that happened between us in the past, I don't think that you have ever really acknowledged the gravity of the issue, and until you do, it will continue to cause problems.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think that you and I both have strong views on the Mustang topics, and because we both have strong feelings on the issue - on opposite sides - we have not been at our best when dealing with one another. To be a steward of an article or project by its very nature forecloses use of the admin tools in that area per WP:INVOLVED. I think that's all that matters here. I don't use the tools on WPEQ articles. Simple as that. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- In the long run, when I edit content, I am dedicated to ultimately getting it "right" — whatever "right" is (if there is a "right", and sometimes there isn't one right answer). As I have stated elsewhere on a number of occasions, I do give good faith viewpoints respect and consider if you are right and I am wrong. For example, you have helped me see that the feral horse issue in Nevada is very different from the feral horse situation in Montana and Wyoming. But you and I need to continue to deal respectfully and carefully with one another because the best we will do is agree to disagree. The genius of the five pillars, particularly the intersection of verifiability, neutrality and civility, becomes clear where people with serious differences of style, personality and opinion have to work together. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- And to answer your question, what has to be made clear is that I weigh the evidence and over time do modify my views based on that evidence. I have changed my views on a number of horse topics over the years. One example was white (horse) where I originally didn't understand the genetics, but now I do, in part from working with another editor (who was at the time a graduate student in genetics) on Dominant white. Another example was Horses in warfare where the MilHist editors held me and others to a very high standard that I wasn't used to at the time, and challenged a number of my assumptions, but it became my second GA. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I take that to be a "no" that you do not intend re-evaluate your attitude and back off? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will continue to edit the Mustang-related articles that you also work on; I've been here for nine years and my content contributions speak for themselves. Where I think any editor is not editing in a neutral fashion, where I think an editor is engaging in OR or SYNTH, I'm going to continue to say so. That does, and will, make a few people unhappy; I can handle that. Others have the same right to do so to me. Again, this would be a situation where WP:INVOLVED clearly applies and where I cannot wear the admin hat. I absolutely respect that policy. Luckily, there are thousands of other areas and millions of other articles where admin tools are needed and I am neutral. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- If there IS an actual problem. But here you and I have a situation where each person vigorously advocates for what they sincerely believe to be correct information and periodically get pissed off at the other. We each point out the biases the other has, and that's uncomfortable, but good for both of us. Fundamentally, you and I disagree on some highly emotional issues, and I think we both have done a decent job of dialing back our strong emotions enough to avoid blocks. I've repeatedly stated that I won't use the tools on equine topics, and I have also already given you examples of times I have changed my viewpoint and ways you in particular have expanded my understanding.
- In conclusion to this discussion, understand that I follow WP:STEWARDSHIP: "...not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership." So yes, sometimes I get a bit testy when people make repeated POV-pushing edits I do not think improve the encyclopedia, and I have gotten testy at you for what I have considered OR, SYNTH and so on; you in turn have pointed out errors in my own assessment of certain things, and where you have provided solid sources, I've moderated my position. That is not "ownership," that's process, and as noted above, process is messy, but also important. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from SSTflyer
- 15. Your AfD statistics are not good, with a hit rate lower than 65%. Will you avoid closing deletion discussions (at least before gaining more experience) if you become an admin?
- A: Yes. Frankly, I don't have much interest in AfD in an admin role, I'm only there if already WP:INVOLVED in some way, usually by AfD pings at a project where I'm a member. My primary involvement there has been to try and save articles from deletion where I think they are potentially salvageable, such as, for example, Hilda Plowright. I lean strongly inclusionist in general, so once I gained some more experience, I suspect that if I reviewed an AfD where I had no previous involvement and determined that consensus warranted deletion, that would be a pretty clear-cut case with clear consensus! (smile) I thought about doing some non-admin closures there before filing, as I know some people look at AfD stats a lot, but I decided that as the only allowable closures by non-admins are "keep" and I already have a reputation as an inclusionist anyway, that would not help me much here. Montanabw(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from Liz
- 16. Since this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, do you consider yourself flexible on accepting that other editors, even relatively inexperienced ones, can improve upon the articles you have created?
- I ask this because as an administrator, you should not be rigid. You have to at least hold the possibility in the back of your mind that you could be mistaken and be wrong about, say, an account being a sockpuppet who might not be. You have to consider alternate explanations for other editors' behavior. Administrators can get into trouble when they believe that they have unerring judgment.
- A: Oh, absolutely! With the caveat that the edits DO need to be an improvement. You note on my talk page that I am wide open to WP:TROUT-slapping and when I realize I'm wrong, I do work to make things right. As for people I don't know or who are new to me, I really enjoyed working with Vesuvius Dogg on the American Pharoah article and that user was a wonderful help! I also met Cliftonian for the first time on the Ahmed Zayat article, and he was very helpful in an area where I had little background. Recently, I've been helping White Arabian mare who is very new and inepxerienced but has a lot of enthusiasm and I hope she stays. She's already created three or four new articles and done some helpful wikignoming elsewhere. Just today I saw extensive edits to Campolina by a new user, but the images they added are of uncertain copyright status, and English is not their first language, so there were some hiccups in phrasing. I had to revert for that reason, but I dropped them a note saying that if they can clean up the copyright question, I'd be glad to see at least a few of them go back in. I also pinged another WPEQ member, Justlettersandnumbers to see if he can help this person out because I'm kind of busy with everything right now. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional questions from RO
- 17. "I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson."([6]) While I assume this comment was tongue-in-cheek, I'm struck by how closely it mirrors concerns raised by others here, particularly Liz and Dennis Brown. Please explain what you meant by this.
- A: RO, based on the discussions below, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to answer any more questions from you. We have "history" and it is clear you oppose my nomination. If granted the mop, I acknowledge up front that I will inevitably be WP:INVOLVED when it comes to you and thus I cannot and will not use the tools in any situation involving you. There are other editors who have blocked you in the past, I will not be one of them. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 18. "I don't worry too much about 'hounding' where there is a clear problem and pattern that can be documented with diffs, though sometimes I save the diffs in case they try to drag me to ANI. But that's me."([7]) I assume you meant that you don't worry about accusations of hounding. Is that a fair statement? If not, what did you mean by this?
- Additional question from jps
- 19. Is it possible for you to provide a full accounting of who you would consider that you couldn't act with in an administrative fashion? In other words, do you have an WP:INVOLVED list, and, if so, who is on it (besides RO, for example)?
- A: Thank you for your question, jps. I don't keep that kind of a list and, honestly, I don't think it would be possible to create one. Over nine-plus years, I've probably dealt with thousands of wikipedia editors, most in a positive fashion, but too many to keep track in any event. Some editors I was wary of at first are now respected colleagues. Some people I've disagreed with have exercised RTV and returned with a new name, so I wouldn't know we had a "past." I'd probably have to check history on a case-by-case basis, and if I forgot that I'd worked with someone and they raised WP:INVOLVED, I'd probably have to investigate and most likely back out immediately and send it to another admin or, if there was something like a time-sensitive BLP issue or other serious problem, at least immediately notify and consult with other admins on my action, stay open to having my action reversed, and be sure there were other eyes out there. I would definitely not wheel-war. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I want to be very, very clear: I understand the difference between advocacy and adminship. I am passionate about equine topics, and I know that in that topic area I must be first and foremost an editor — and therefore would never expect to be acting as an admin in those articles, no matter who was editing. I also know there are usually a few editors I'm dealing with who raise my blood pressure, and those are people where I must never interact with them in an administrative fashion. Finally, I also have made some pretty good friends here on Wiki, and have met some of them in real life (such as Ealdgyth, Rosiestep and Keilana ). So I also have to not use the tools in a situation where personal loyalty compromises my neutrality. Where I have a disagreement that falls under any these categories, then I need to use ANI, DR/N, 3O, RfC or other appropriate venues, just like everyone else. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from User:MelanieN
- 20. What are your feelings about WP:CIVILITY? When is it appropriate to block for civility?
- A: Thank you for your question, MelanieN. If I become an administrator, here's my thinking on how an Admin needs to look at civility issues:
- An admin always should start with the policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I think that's a good ideal. However, the devil is in the details because Wikipedia imitates life and everyone has less-than-ideal moments. Common sense and discretion is needed.
- Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility is very helpful here. Blocking is for "serious disruption". I wanted to quote that entire section, but let's just say that I fully agree with the principles laid out there; immediate blocks are for when "nothing else would do" and that it is very important to look at the whole picture.
- Policy also states, "Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive." I agree.
- In situations with a gray area, I would definitely try to review the whole situation and look at the big picture. In particular, I would look for WP:BAITing: often the person who has the meltdown and resorts to profanity is not the one with the incivility problem; they are actually the person who was bullied to the breaking point.
- Policy is also clear that other than cases warranting immediate blocks, it's better to open a discussion via ANI and allow community discussion before reaching a conclusion.
- Additional question from Brustopher
- 21. Two editors FrenchToast and SwedishMeatballs get into an editing dispute. FrenchToast links to a reddit account named SwedishMeatballs as evidence that Meatballs is plotting against him offsite. The account has made multiple posts about Toast encouraging people to troll him. What do you do? Does this qualify as outing?
- A: If the usernames were actually real names, then yes. WP:OUTING is clear: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address..." etc. So if we were talking real names as opposed to usernames, that's a serious problem; any personal information disclosed on wiki would require an immediate revdel and a referral for oversighting. If these were usernames in both cases and personal information was not involved, it still might be harassment, depending on the big picture. Once any identity protection occurred, we'd then turn to the users' behavior and look at the overall situation. I'd certainly seek additional help and not fly solo other than to deal with the immediate identity protection. SwedishMeatballs most likely is going to be looked at to determine if s/he was trolling or harassing FrenchToast off-wiki to gain leverage in an editing dispute. (I'm thinking of the example of the editor who was harassing Cwmhiraeth via an off-wiki blog a year or two ago, that was a nasty situation). However, FrenchToast may need to have his/her behavior examined as well, as the policy states, "dredging up their offline opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment." We would want to determine if someone on Reddit was trying to fake that they were the WP editor of the same name to get SwedishMeatballs in trouble. This is a complicated situation and one for a team of people to work on. Other than the immediate revdel for identity protection, the rest would require a thorough investigation and review. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- 22. Jane Doe is a notable clockmaker with her own BLP on Wikipedia. Someone adds information about her being transgender to the article sourced to two separate investigative pieces from Gawker and Breitbart what do you do?
- A: Well, our policies are WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, for starters, and anything potentially negative or libelous has to be removed if not properly sourced. BLP is specific: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Gawker and Breitbart are tabloid-type sources, so inadvisable as a RS on a potentially inflammatory topic. For that reason, I'd toss the info until the story was picked up by more reliable media outlets. The exception MIGHT be if it was an interview she gave to the source and it was a direct quote. But even then, I'd be careful and, frankly, dubious—it could be a satirical or fake interview and the potential of an The Onion-like misstep is out there. So I'd toss the material and ask the editor to see if it gets picked up by a more reliable source. If it's real, and matters, the mainstream press will have it in 24 hours or so, most likely. Montanabw(talk) 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- 23. There seems to be a few people in the oppose section accusing you of horse related controversy. What's so controversial about horses?
- A: Excellent question! I guess that people who are fond of them tend to have strong opinions about the details of their care, which ones are best, and so on. I see similarities with sports fans, dog owners, the dogs versus cats question, Macs versus PCs, Fords versus Chevys, and so on. There is something quite amazing about 1000 pound animals who will let us lead them around and ride them. It warps our brains, I guess. Or maybe it's the falling off part that does that... I don't know, but there is a lot of drama in horse-aficionado land! (smile) Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from RO
- 24. "But for the record, I absolutely have not 'concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time.' Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ([8])
- I sincerely hope that's true, and I'll be the first to apologize if I'm wrong about this, but I've uncovered two different IPs that can be irrefutably connected to your account and vandalism. One predates, then overlaps with, your account, and the other vandalized an article on May 6, 2015 and last edited on September 4, 2015 (diffs available upon request). You might not want to respond to any more of my questions, but I really think the community deserves a straight answer to why there are two IPs that edited Wikipedia for a combined 5.5 years that appear to have been used by you and vandals. For the record the vandalism is super minor, but it's still vandalism. Plus you said you never used IPs and accounts except for a few accidents that were revdeled: ([9]). Is that accurate? I promise this is the last stand-alone question I'll add here, so will you please offer the community an explanation? Have you been using a shared IP for years?
- A: Hmm. You have given me a good smile, as when you said "predated your account", I looked at the Arabian horse article (where I began in March 2006) and I'm betting you found this IP: Special:Contributions/161.7.2.160 (all edits from this IP here). That is/was a State of Montana IP, and I did make my first edits from work at the (utterly miserable) job I had back then! (I worked for the state, though not in the town the IP currently geolocates to). It does show the first four edits I ever made on wikipedia, the day before I created my account! I forgot that, but of course, I would have tentatively tried to edit WP before realizing that I needed an account! That was a cool find, RO! I am impressed that you have been so thoroughly digging through every edit I ever made! Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like I made some subsequent horse article edits without logging in up through December 2007 too (which is when I left state employment, FWIW). I doubt I knew revdel even existed then and I obviously didn't pay much attention that I had edited logged out! I certainly was not "concurrently operating" accounts to vandalize or evade scrutiny! - just editing logged out and not paying much attention to that fact! Totally forgot those ever existed. Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- But definitely not vandalism! As you can see, I was not the only state employee editing wikipedia on company time! In that period, I most certainly did not edit Pogs, Aang, Bismarck, ND, or List of Peabody Award winners, I know squat about Bayesian inference or Rich Text Format programming languages, am too old to know much about SpongeBob and I definitely am not related to Tom Palmer! If the following was the vandalism you found, I am definitely NOT the person who did this, either! What a great, fun find! Oh LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining that, Montanabw. I guess you forgot that you've made dozens of IP edits that were never revdeled. Those are some interesting co-workers you had! A follow-up question that seems needed here is that you say this: ([10]) is a shared IP from a former place of employment, but I noticed that several edits were made from that IP at 4 am Mountain Time. Many others were made as late as 9 pm. Those are odd times for an office with advertised hours of 8am to 5pm. Will you please explain? RO(talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, email me the the other diff with the IP and the vandalism. If it's me, I'll explain. I have edited from within the State of Montana's firewall since leaving state employment and also have edited from inside the Montana University System's firewall when I've been teaching as an adjunct. I also edit wikipedia from the road, motels, coffee shops, airports... lots of shared locations. ( I have email enabled, so shoot me the IP and what article was allegedly vandalized). Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I think I found the other: Special:Contributions/161.7.59.15, also within the State of Montana firewall. No, the vandalism on May 6 was not me; I wasn't inside the State of Montana's internet firewall on May 6 at all (I don't work for the state now, but I have done some wikipedia training for a couple different agencies there), I'm also not a kiddie vandalism type anyway. There is a research center and a library open to the public within the scope of that IP address. I made two edits logged out on November 3 when I was doing a demonstration of wikipedia editing for some state employees. One was obviously just editing logged out right before we got started, and thus I was a space cadet not to have logged in. The other one [11] was an example where I hit a random article, made an edit, then showed people what an anon IP edit looks like and why it's a good idea to get an account, showing how the IP is revealed ... I remember joking with the group, asking who the Camper Van Beethoven fan was who had previously been editing from that IP, and got a good laugh! (and you have caught me red-handed, I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel.) The anon IP edits to Rose Hum Lee in August were probably were done by one of the participants at the Montana History Editathon we had that day; I was one of the facilitators and that was one of the articles we worked on. Have I now identified and explained the two IP addresses you found? Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
and you have caught me red-handed, I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel.
- Okay. So, it was just that one edit, hey?
- So first it was "I never edited logged out except a couple of times that were revdeled" Then is was "I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel", but here are 94 edits, some of which show you reverting people at articles with both your account and your IP, which you had never claimed as your own until this RfA. Sure, these are old and stale, but your fresh explanation of them is lacking, IMO, and this speaks to your current level of honesty with the community. This is a huge red flag for me, so please explain why you reverted people with your anon IP and your account at pages where you never disclosed that the IP was you.(Note that all of these IP edits came after Montanabw registered her account in March 2006) RO(talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rationalobserver, Montana said above that she made some horse-related edits from that IP. I haven't looked at all your diffs, but the ones I looked at aren't problematic and in any case are from 2007. Sarah (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
[Moved from above] But aren't these ones also you? Some of them show you reverting people with both your IP ([14]) and your account ([15]) at the same article in the same day. Can you please offer a policy-based explanation for why this isn't socking? RO(talk) 18:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- You asked this question on talk and it was answered there. Montana reverted at an article one day, and the next day (for her) reverted at the same article logged out. That isn't a problem (and it was in 2007). Sarah (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw reverted with her account at 01:25 on May 17, then 18 hours later reverted with her IP. She returned on May 23 to again revert with her account. Is this really allowed when nobody knew this IP was her? RO(talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's only a problem if there's an issue at the article, such as 3RR violations or something contentious happening. But there was nothing like that. You're pointing to three reverts within one week (eight years ago), one of them done while logged out, probably by mistake. Sarah (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- But editors can edit war without ever breaking 3RR, right? Doesn't this look like controlling content with both an IP and an account that were not publicly linked? She restored the same version of the page once with her IP and twice with her account. RO(talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Editors can edit war without breaking 3RR, yes. But whatever this was, it was very very very very long ago and I find it difficult to hold this against the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree these are old, but her denial about them is not. She's clearly been dishonest during this RfA about her past use of IPs. She has changed her story more than once, because if you read above you'll see she told everyone that she only edited logged out a couple of time, and those were revdeled. Can one really forget using an IP for 2 years before making an account and 2 1/2 years after? Is it realistic to believe that she completely forget 4 1/2 years of IP editing? RO(talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Editors can edit war without breaking 3RR, yes. But whatever this was, it was very very very very long ago and I find it difficult to hold this against the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- But editors can edit war without ever breaking 3RR, right? Doesn't this look like controlling content with both an IP and an account that were not publicly linked? She restored the same version of the page once with her IP and twice with her account. RO(talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's only a problem if there's an issue at the article, such as 3RR violations or something contentious happening. But there was nothing like that. You're pointing to three reverts within one week (eight years ago), one of them done while logged out, probably by mistake. Sarah (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw reverted with her account at 01:25 on May 17, then 18 hours later reverted with her IP. She returned on May 23 to again revert with her account. Is this really allowed when nobody knew this IP was her? RO(talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some IPs made inappropriate edits at Thoroughbred. Montana reverted using her account at 01:25, 17 May 2007. [16] An anon added a half-sentence in an odd place. [17] Montana reverted logged out at 19:22, 17 May 2007. [18] Some other IPs added unsourced material. Montana reverted it as Montana at 03:28, 23 May 2007. [19] There is absolutely no problem with those edits, and they were eight years ago. Sarah (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Sarah. The diffs are old, but her dishonestly about them is current. Here's more of the same at a different article, Arabian horse. At 05:22 on March 5, Montanabw reverted an edit with her account:([20]). 13 hours later she restored the same version she reverted to earlier with her account using her IP:([21]). Then, a month later at the same article she reverted an edit using her IP: ([22]), and returned there 30 hours later to revert to the same version with her account: ([23]). Are these all accidents? RO(talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some IPs made inappropriate edits at Thoroughbred. Montana reverted using her account at 01:25, 17 May 2007. [16] An anon added a half-sentence in an odd place. [17] Montana reverted logged out at 19:22, 17 May 2007. [18] Some other IPs added unsourced material. Montana reverted it as Montana at 03:28, 23 May 2007. [19] There is absolutely no problem with those edits, and they were eight years ago. Sarah (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, RO, they are all unintentional, save for the one to Australian Raven that I did as a demo. I apologize that I forgot about that one. I also apologize that I stated that all accidental IP edits were revdeled; I certainly do so now - at least the once I know of; obviously I've missed a few. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Back at the state, I habitually would log out of everything every day at the end of the day (always potential there for shared computer use or the gnomes to replace your machine over the weekend); when I'd go to wiki the next time, looks like I'd sometimes forget to log in and just start editing; I do remember (now that my brain has been pinged) sometimes going "d'oh! Forgot to log in!". That's not socking. The definition of WP:SOCK is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose ... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." So once again, I have NEVER, EVER socked. Period. End of story. I have never edited in an attempt to evade scrutiny; I behaved the same way all the time; I acted like I was logged in whether I was or not (even signing with four tildes, thus revealing my IP to the whole planet!) If you analyze my Montanabw edits from 2007 and before, I had over 7000 edits under my username by December 2007. So, according to RO's analysis, I edited logged out 94 times out of 7000. That's a 1.3% brain fart rate, not bad! Not bad at all! Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Second, I did not "use an IP account for two years before making an account." The State of Montana is a big place and the IP addresses go to various servers, serving multiple buildings and users. The building I worked in probably held several hundred other workers. As I pointed out above, if you look at the 161.7.2.160 IP, the only edits that could be mine are in 2006 and 2007, I clearly behaved the same as when logged in; I started editing WP in March 2006 (the pattern is obvious, horse articles) I didn't work for the state after 2007 (thus no access to that IP) so none of the 2008 edits are mine, and even in 2006-7, there clearly are edits in areas where I have ever edited nor have I any knowledge (e.g. Pepin Garcia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia ). The other state IP shows I've made perhaps 3 or 4 edits, all linked to specific wikipedia training activities. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
RO can discuss this further with other users at talk. I shall answer any appropriate questions regarding this matter from other users here if needed (but best to ping my talk page, it's now a wall of text here.) I am now finished dealing with RO. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional question from Gerda Arendt
- 25. I see that you have to answer many questions, so try to be short: please look at a diff and tell me if your gut feeling would be to ignore, block, talk to the user or what? Only if you have more time, look at the history and what other admins did, and comment if you feel like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- A: Thank you, Gerda, I have a two-part answer:
- In reality, I probably wouldn't use the admin tools on THIS particular case other than act as an ordinary user, and alert another admin. The reason is that I might fall under WP:INVOLVED because one of the underlying issues is the use of infoboxes and I'm a known participant in the infobox "issue" that has gone to ArbCom and back. I'd ping an experienced but neutral admin to handle this one. In a total crisis, might have to act to protect a user, but then I'd ping another admin and remain open to having my actions reviewed. Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now, in theory, if I had no involvement with the underlying issues, I'd start with WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I'd investigate the background quite a bit before considering a block. I'd not act solely on this single diff and I would not block without a warning, investigation, and talking to both parties. I'd take a look at the relevant edits and both editors' talk pages and contribs. I'd check to see if I had either a total newbie or an obvious newly-created vandal account on either side. I'd look at the block logs of both editors. I'd see if anyone else had warned either party.
- If that all checked out, I'd warn the user who posted the remark that they'd crossed the line on WP:NPA and that further behavior could result in a block. I'd also suggest that they should
striketheir comment and apologize for their remarks. I'd try to calm the user who was the recipient of the attack. A block would only be needed if, after all of the above, one editor continued to attack and harass the other and there was no other way to prevent further disruption.
- If that all checked out, I'd warn the user who posted the remark that they'd crossed the line on WP:NPA and that further behavior could result in a block. I'd also suggest that they should
- The actual action taken was a tough call, it looks like the blocked editor had been warned and made no further edits between the time he was warned and the time he was blocked a half-hour later, but maybe wires got crossed between the two edits. The user had a previously clean block record (or mostly), promptly apologized, and the blocking admin actually unblocked within less than 24 hours [24] so at the end of the day, while I would have warned and then blocked only if the behavior continued, I don't want to second-guess an admin who may have been following the entire case and knew more of the background than I have from a brief review. I might also have tried to calm the upset recipient to prevent the subsequent ragequit, though the situation may have already escalated to the point where my stepping in would merely be rearranging deck chairs. Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for a thoughtful answer. Do I read right that you had the gut feeling that it deserved a block, but would not do it without investigating and getting counsel from an experienced admin, and that you came to the conclusion something had to be done about the "recipient"? I will try to go for that.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I was in the totally neutral role, I would not have acted without looking at the whole picture as best as I could, and I think that consulting with a more experienced admin before issuing a block would definitely be something I'd do as a new admin, probably for quite a few months. My "gut" said we had one editor baiting and the other in a meltdown. So my "gut" would be to make a solid attempt to dial back the emotions on both sides enough to stop the disruption without using the hammer. In the conflicts I've had myself, I've often felt a huge wave of relief when an admin arrived and said, "now everyone, please settle down." Kind of like when a cop shows up at a minor fender-bender. Even if someone is going to get a ticket, you know that when the flashing lights show up, the worst is probably over. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Montanabw: Montanabw (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Montanabw can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
- Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Wikipedia's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great content contributor, worked with them on Homer Davenport. Don't see anything "bar"ring them from being a great admin!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Montanabw is clearly an exemplary editor who has made large-scale content contributions and I have no reason to oppose. In regards to question 10, revert 1 removed a clearly satirical source, revert 2 was done to remove clear-cut vandalism, revert 3 was an instance where a constructive edit was made after someone had vandalized and Montanabw decided to revert to get rid of the vandalism but added the constructive content back in in a subsequent edit and revert 5 removed false information, inserted to deceive, from the article (Piebald, the article subject, refers to black and white, not blue as the reverted edit stated). The only error I saw in the entire list was revert 4, where Montanabw reverted vandalism, but apparently forgot to re-add a constructive grammatical edit. This was an incredibly minor mistake, and if this is the worst that can be dug up on Montanabw then I am even more confident in voting support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support because I see no good reason not to. Both voters currently in the oppose section seem to have a personal beef with the candidate, and I find their arguments unpersuasive. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support lots of content creation under his belt and experienced as well! -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support Very happy to see this RfA finally! Montanabw has been at the top of my list for a long time both as an editor I greatly respect and as a prime candidate for adminship. She should have been promoted long ago! Swarm ♠ 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Having seen this candidate's high-quality contributions and being encouraged by her proposed focus on DYK, I am happy to provide my endorsement. –Grondemar 04:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Candidate is a solid writer and editor who has the potential to be an excellent administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Concerns about accuracy at AfD are serious. Concerns about attraction to drama are serious. But still support, due to a feeling of trust that she will never used administrative tools or privileges in support of personal preference in matters of deletion or drama. Administrators are not required to be boring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Montanabw is a great person who has been dedicated to Wikipedia for nine years and has a fun and upbeat personality. She has all kinds of content experience and experience keeping the trolls from the door. My only reservations to this adminship are that (1) I hope she does not spend too much time adminning, because we need her to keep doing the stuff she has been doing so well for the past umpteen years. (2) Part of the "large and colorful personality" effect is that she can be dramatic or snippy, and partisan, at times. Therefore, I hope that when performing admin or admin-related tasks, she puts on her most civil and neutral hat and leaves the "colorful" at the door. And I hope she recognizes where she is less experienced and lacks expertise, and accepts the need to learn or take feedback before proceeding. Heaven knows we all can't be, and all admins can't be, as neutral, composed, thoughtful, circumspect, and policy-knowledgeable as, say, NeilN, but I think that level of composure and neutrality and carefulness and policy knowledge is something all admins should aspire to. Anyway, best of luck to Montanabw. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- One of those candidates that makes me a bit miffed anyone would oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I may not always agree with her positions on any given article, but she actually discusses issues, and her record at AfD is reasonable. I note further that having had a copyright problem in the distant past would make her a stronger admin on that topic in my opinion. Collect (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Candidate meets my RfA standards. Mkdwtalk 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support thanks for the nice diff from RO showing why we should support the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support The candidate seems quite feisty and so we can expect the tools to be wielded with some vigour. For example, see the duck box incident. But the consensus in that case was ok and someone has to do the dirty work of mucking out the stable. Her content work is excellent and indicates that she's here for the right reasons. And the fact that this is her first RfA, after nearly 10 years of work here, shows commendable patience and restraint. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Based on content contributions and overall "clue". Philg88 ♦talk 07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jianhui67 T★C 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Damn right! Montanabw is fair, impartial, productive, approachable, and knows a thing or two about creating content. She also does not suffer fools gladly. I fully support this candidacy. This, in my mind, is the only stone-bonker RfA since Ritchie333's candidacy a few months back. CassiantoTalk 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Support - no doubt about it. A scholar, a content developer, and knows her way around. You can say feisty or you can say knows how to stand up for herself, which admins do need, after all. The Equine Nutrition thing was a clear copyvio, but it was 8 years ago and she dealt with it by becoming a copyvio checker and remover herself, so I agree with Collect about that. And everything that Diannaa said in her co-nom. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Indented. There's too much background here and I don't have time to study it, so I'm not qualified to !vote on this one. Please note: not moving to oppose nor even to neutral; just bowing out as unable to investigate enough. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Hmm, after all I've seen enough. Moving to oppose now. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support without qualification; an eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support but may need to take more care with picture uploading, eg File:ShowHack.jpg. Otherwise answered questions well, and has a good range of experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I've come across Montanabw multiple times in the past and I've always had a pleasant experience. She shows good judgement and I think she'll do wonders if given the Mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Have been impressed by the way that Montanabw has stood up to some of our more difficult editors. Number 57 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- After quite a bit of thought, coming down on this side. While loyalty is a commendable quality, Montanabw has in the past acted as enabler to some of Wikipedia's more obnoxious characters, which has led to decisions which should have been fairly clear-cut being stretched out into long timesinks before reaching their inevitable conclusions. (No, I'm not going to provide diffs; there's no benefit in reheating old disputes. Whichever crat closes this will no doubt be well aware of the incidents to which I'm referring.) Despite that, I think she's a fundamentally decent person who just happens to have some dubious friends, rather than a dubious character in her own right, and I don't consider her likely to join in the "unblock your friends and block your enemies" brigade (and even if she did, would have a long way to go before being the worst offender among the current admins). ‑ iridescent 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Philg88, who hit the nail on the head here. Graham87 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support On balance, yes. Deb (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Long term user trustworthy see no concerns clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great all-around editor, will definitely be an asset. I understand the concerns that the tools may not be needed, however if one good administrative action is taken it's a positive. Oh, and judging by the current expectations to write a five page essay in support !votes, let me just say that I endorse the nominations. Kharkiv07 (T) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support has clue. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Firstly, I admire Montanabw's answer (both paragraphs) to Question 8. This reflects a careful, considerate, thoughtful and intelligent approach that I already observe in her work as an editor. There will be no hasty wielding of the sword in a "rush to judgment". Secondly: I echo entirely Andrew Davidson's rationale in support number 28. I am thankful and excited that this RfA is finally taking place and it will be a pleasure to see Montanabw bestowed with the tools of adminship. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Support. Overdue DYK updates are almost a regular occurrence nowadays, and DYK needs more volunteers. AfD statistics are not very good, but it is fine since the candidate is avoiding that area. Should be a net positive. sstflyer 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Heck yeah - I'm familiar with her administratoresque work and concur with the nominating statements.- MrX 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Genuine content contributor and appears trustworthy. -RoseL2P (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support well qualified. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support No concerns here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- an active, obviously passionate and well-qualified participant in the creation and discussion of Wikipedia content. I am in complete agreement with Dennis Brown's insights (No. 3 in the neutral section) -- but I support in the belief that Montanabw will take Dennis' advice and moderate any personal passions when they take on the somewhat mundane, by-the-book tasks of an administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent contributor and thoughtful participant. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support based on review and agree with co-nom, Diannaa. Could be more objective on AfD work but a net positive overall. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Happy to do so. Sarah (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great content creator. Level headed and displays excellent knowledge and application of policy. Minor4th 17:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seems OK. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - basically, per Iridescent. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - A mature, level headed editor with a lot of content and collaborative experience. She should be a welcome addition to the Admin pool.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - fantastic. Level-headed responses to overt baiting by someone obviously trolling the nomination show great promise for someone with access to the tools, and a prolific content contributor to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector, nom statements, and her potential to help out in areas like DYK. Keilana (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support The good far outweighs the bad Aparslet (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support likelihood of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Had some initial concerns over the AfD stuff, but Softlavender's comment in the neutral section has convinced me that this shouldn't be a problem. Barring other issues receiving clearer evidence, support. — Earwig talk 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Anyone who has been around this long, created this much content, and been as active as Montanabw is bound to have stepped on a few toes, and developed a few animosities. I've also had a few spirited disagreements with them, but in the end I see a mature, intelligent adult; willing to explain their position without soft-soaping their way through a discussion. I believe Montana will continue to have the project's best interests at heart, and will be a net positive in her actions and words. — Ched : ? 19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Montanabw is passionate about improving this encyclopedia. That's not enough in and of itself, so also per noms, Softlavender's response to Richie333, candidate's answers to questions, and the candidate's understanding of WP:INVOLVED. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Montanabw is not perfect, but is a very good editor and can contribute a lot to the encyclopedia.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
- Weak Support per Iridescent and Ched, my support tempered by some opposes that seem to be rather troubling. Not that troubling though. Pedro : Chat 21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, has competence and character to be a good admin. Cavarrone 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Pokerkiller (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pokerkiller - You need to provide a better reason as to why you think they should be given the mop..... –Davey2010Talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- No they don't. By tradition, voting yes means that you agree with the nom's statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- That was in 2006, It's now 2015 so people really need to provide a much better reason, If I were to oppose and not provide a reason I would expect to be questioned so I believe the same should happen with those who don't provide a Support reason. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Guerillero:, Davey2010 has a valid question. I support Montanabw and explained why, but getting the bit for life is a big deal, and editors are entitled to inquire as to the reason for support. I will note that Davey's question was polite and non-confrontational, especially when compared to the harassment that most of the opposing editors have to go through. If you wish to address such questioning, you would be of more service to WP to start on the other side of the dividing line. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you would like to change the way requests for adminship are run or to create a de-adminning process that doesn't involve arbcom, get a consensus but please do not interrupt a part of the project to prove a point. Requests for adminship have been called "fraternity hazing ritual" and "chinese water torture" because each oppose vote is worth three support votes and the mood of the process changes at the drop of a hat. It is a vicious process that pushes good editors out. (Also, to call responses to opposes harassment de-legitimises the actual harassment that happens on this project.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Exactly what was interrupted? Besides, after watching the CF that the bureaucrats danced around in a recent crat-chat, trying to determine how to weigh supports which had no explanation for the reason, it makes sense to ask those that haven't outlined their reasons why they support the candidate. There is no prohibition on it, and as a number of people have noted, this is not a vote, but a discussion. Or would you rather just allow discussion on one side? Either way, editors are entitled to ask for the reasoning behind a position, and you are not entitled to shut down the discussion just because you are an administrator and an ArbCom member. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you would like to change the way requests for adminship are run or to create a de-adminning process that doesn't involve arbcom, get a consensus but please do not interrupt a part of the project to prove a point. Requests for adminship have been called "fraternity hazing ritual" and "chinese water torture" because each oppose vote is worth three support votes and the mood of the process changes at the drop of a hat. It is a vicious process that pushes good editors out. (Also, to call responses to opposes harassment de-legitimises the actual harassment that happens on this project.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Guerillero:, Davey2010 has a valid question. I support Montanabw and explained why, but getting the bit for life is a big deal, and editors are entitled to inquire as to the reason for support. I will note that Davey's question was polite and non-confrontational, especially when compared to the harassment that most of the opposing editors have to go through. If you wish to address such questioning, you would be of more service to WP to start on the other side of the dividing line. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- That was in 2006, It's now 2015 so people really need to provide a much better reason, If I were to oppose and not provide a reason I would expect to be questioned so I believe the same should happen with those who don't provide a Support reason. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- No they don't. By tradition, voting yes means that you agree with the nom's statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#support_reason NE Ent 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pokerkiller - You need to provide a better reason as to why you think they should be given the mop..... –Davey2010Talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Why not? (iridescent is speaking some truth up above) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support: People who hate drama don't want to be admins; drama comes with the job. If we find an editor with a passion for the encyclopedia, a strong history of content creation, and generally good judgement, we shouldn't exclude them because they have had some drama. Montanabw doesn't seem to be seeking out drama, but she hasn't shied away from it either. She should have the tools. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I havent worked with you in quite a long time, but what I remember is entirely positive. Im not convinced by the opposes or the very difficult questions that youve suddenly become a whole different person. —Soap— 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- These are some of the most emotional oppose votes I've seen, and I've been reading RFAs for a long time. I respect all the opposes, and I realize this RFA will not pass, but I am standing by my vote and that is not just me being stubborn. I really think we would be better off if this RFA were to succeed and that the opposers are wrong. —Soap— 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support As per many above supporters. Some Opposers below saying that Montanabw is not sensible enough. We can ignore some issues related to general Human nature, but we can't ignore her contribution to many articles. She is content creator so she can be a better admin. Some people are having issues related to AFD, I have not gone deep into that but I think AFD closure should not be on the basis of number of !votes in AFD. It should be on the basis of policy. Because some users have some so called "enemies" on Wikipedia and these people comment "delete" without any delay when "enemy's" article gets nominated for AFD, so take that thing in account while closing AFD. Thank you. --Human3015TALK 05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support This editor criticized one of my very early contributions to the encyclopedia and she was right. I took her comments to heart and am a better editor as a result. She held no grudge whatsoever against me. Yes, she can be brash and sometimes a tiny bit combative but always keeping the goal of improving the encyclopedia foremost in her mind. The sad fact is that socks and trolls and vandals exist and must be opposed, which isn't always pretty but is absolutely necessary. If she is "overly inclusionist" in combatting systemic bias, then that is why we have consensus based deletion policies, and her general attitude about women's topics is commendable and worthy. As for equine topics, she is indispensible. I have watched her interactions with other editors many times over the years and am completely confident that she will use the toolkit responsibly. I support her candidacy proudly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Montanabw is first and foremost a fine content producer. She is level-headed, understands policies, and uses sound, balanced judgement. She is loyal, honest, fair, and responsible. She speaks with an authentic voice. She has my very strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - What we have here is a long-time Wikipedia editor who has a clean block log (despite whatever "controversy" they've supposedly been involved in previously) and who has been an excellent content contributor so far. After looking at their AfD stats more thoroughly and adjusting for some eventual outcomes (no consensus = default keep), I see around a 69% "green" ("success") rate with a few minor issues, mostly in the AfD nominating area. While this statistic is a tad low IMHO, this editor here has apparently only participated in around 140 AfDs (and voted in only around 126 AfDs). In my personal observation of this editor's conduct on Wikipedia, I have found them to be very helpful and trustworthy. I also think it's important to consider that we are all human beings and that our current Wikipedia administrator corps is far from perfect. This user would make a good addition to that administrator corps. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support One of our best content producers, and someone who puts the encyclopedia first. My experiences with her have been uniformly good. We need a diversity of views on behavior and inclusion/deletion among admins. Acroterion (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, mostly per Cullen328 (3-4 !votes above). I also reviewed the candidate's history at ANI, pointed out by Wbm1058 below, and found either several WP:BOOMERANGs against socks or POV-pushers, or some run-of-the-mill passionate head-butting. As User:Dennis Brown said in the Neutral section, Montanabw tends to be too passionate on occasion, which is not a plus for an administrator, but I still trust her experience and ability to restrain herself enough to believe she will not abuse the tools. No such user (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I have been urging Montanabw to stand for adminship for years. When I saw the standing for admin banner on her talk page, I had to come out of slumber and support. Superb content provider, can be trusted to stand aside at the slightest whiff of involvement, or effectively cut through BS when needed. Is she passionate? Heck yes. We need passion in the service of the project. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great contributor to the project. Montanabw has been very helpful and civil whenever I've interacted with her. Clear net benefit by becoming an admin. Gizza (t)(c) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I would add to Cullen328's statement, which I agree with wholeheartedly, that Montanabw is a steady and tireless mentor for new editors. It is difficult to learn WikiPolicies and procedures and she is supportive and proactive in teaching and guiding, with a huge measure of patience. At the same time, she is clearly passionate about the encyclopedia. Passion is not a bad thing, it is what keeps one involved and encourages others. However, I also know from personal experience that she can and does weigh situations and change course if evidence calls for it. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom statement. Rubbish computer 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - There is a tendency towards article ownership and battleground behavior over same, for sure, as a couple of the opposes have noted. Nevertheless, I have fundamental confidence in this long-term content person. I believe there is currently a need for something like 50 new administrators and I feel that Montanabw has every prospect of being a good one. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - While Montanabw has been involved in some drama, it's never been much (to my mind). And it's clearly and importantly counterbalanced by the immense amount of help she is willing to give to newbies and others just starting out at Wikipedia and those needing a boost in knowledge or just some emotional support. That's a huge issue for Wikipedia, and she embraces it and enjoys it. Her clear-eyed understanding of when to stay out of things (as an admin), and her commitment to using common sense and guidelines rather than personal views, weigh heavily in her favor for me. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Would be a net positive for the project; seems trustworthy. SpencerT♦C 16:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Long-term experienced user; seems trustworthy and does not supplicate to troublesome users seeking to harm our project. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Agreed that she would make a good admin. Zugman (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Zugman, what is it about seeing this WP:RfA for Montanabw that made you step away from your two-year Wikibreak? Had you seen her around before and are familiar with her work because of that? Were you simply checking in to Wikipedia, saw this WP:RfA and briefly looked over the case? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what motivated you to support, given that you edit Wikipedia very sparingly, unless you edit more so as an IP, and since your support vote doesn't give any insight into your point of view on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I never thought that this RfA was a good idea, and the nonsense in oppose #3 about the "cult of Corbett" goes some way to explaining why. It's rather puzzling why I need to be insulted in someone else's RfA, but for the record I've probably disagreed with Montanabw about as often as I've agreed with her. I have no doubt though that if she were granted the tools she'd perform the admin role with honesty and integrity, which is more than can be said for some of the present incumbents. Eric Corbett 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support There's more to admin that AfD: if there have been problems there, I'm sure Motanabw will have the wisdom to direct their energies elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
- Support - I agree with all the supportive things said so far.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - There are some important and valid points made in the "opposes" below, but on balance I think that Montanabw would use the admin tools with restraint and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, so I am supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Myself and Montana fought long and hard over the Pumkin Sky issue, so this was a difficult one to decide on. I think that basicaly I trust her now; there is no doubt that she is well intentioned and sincere, the olny question for me is that her judgement might be clouded by loyalty (not that i'm any better). I have been impressed several times and dissapointed once or twice since that spat (infoboxes), but willing to allow that the weight of adminship will act as a cooling agent. My main reason for supporting is that she cares about the project, I basically like her, and she is a workhorse. She will do the job, and we need admins with such energy. Great; good luck. Plus, the RO thing was a major thing, lets not understate the difficulty faced there. Ceoil (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Precious #27 - COI: the low number tells you that we have been friends for a long time. Normally I stop at this point. Looking at some opposes, a bit more:
- I am pleased with the thoughtful answer to my question!
- I look forward to another female admin.
- I look forward to another admin who knows Wikipedia inside out.
- I look forward to another admin with a sense of humour.
- I look forward to another admin who has been teaching.
- I look forward to an admin awarding prizes for merits.
- I look forward to another admin who is outspoken about her feelings.
- I look forward to another admin who comes to the rescue of someone she sees in need (one instance described by Folantin below) - even if I - for example - at times feel I am not in need.
- I look forward to another admin who shares some of the same ideas and values, as a friend put it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support although I don't know why she wants to...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Honestly, WP:Net positive and the RfA candidate has been able to answer user questions or concerns thoroughly and accurately. I feel as though the opposes of this RfA are generally over-critical and not substantive enough for an adequate oppose. The user seems to have a handful of editing experience under their belt, particularly content-wise, and appears to have specific uses for the tool. --JustBerry (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I have never really interacted with her, but I have read numerous contributions by her and have obviously read the material above. Although I am not sure why she would want to be an admin, I have no doubt that she would be a far better admin than many who currently are, and, that being the case, I am happy to support here. In fact, she should have been made an admin a long time ago, in my opinion. DDStretch (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I can support her. She stepped up to deal with the WP:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime at a time when it was needed and no-one else was willing to help, and she gained a lot of respect from me for doing that work. She understands the problems caused to the project from serial sockmasters such as ItsLassietime (seriously, do we AGF for users who post stuff like this (warning: not nice reading!), [25]?. A lot of the ANI threads posted originated from a single serial sockmaster. Furthermore, she fully understands the process of writing content according to the best sources (I've watched her and been impressed on this point). As for battleground behavior, often it goes both ways - the RO issue is case in point. I have stood across from Montanabw on some issues (infoboxes) yet, have no compunction supporting. She's honest and loyal, passionate about the project, she's a hard worker, and she doesn't get disillusioned. That, in my book, is important. Victoria (tk) 13:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't get here without effort, but ultimately I hope this turns around and passes. I do think there's a lot of partisanship in how MBW interacts with people who she perceives as enemies of her friends. I'm thinking in particular of the incident Bish describes in the oppose section, or the way she shows up kind of out of the blue in talk page discussions a friend starts about infoboxes. But I also think there's a similar amount of partisanship in about 1/2 the admins and 1/2 the politically active editors we have ("politically active" defined as the type of people who vote in RFA and comment at noticeboards). I fully trust her to avoid involving her admin tools in content disputes. The question in my mind is whether I trust her to never involve her admin tools, directly or indirectly, when a friend is in conflict with someone else. I'm not positive she will, but I'm reasonably confident she will. I wouldn't be willing to take the risk for everyone, but in this case the benefits of having a smart, active, serious content contributor who has a ton of experience and cluefulness leads me to want to take that risk. We need more clueful admins, and while I'd love a few dozen perfect people with no faults, I don't see many of those around. I think this would be a net positive, and I encourage people in the oppose section to consider if the benefits might outweigh the concerns they legitimately have. If this RFA squeaks thru (or even if it doesn't), MBW, please take the concerns expressed in the oppose setion into account; they are not baseless. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, albeit somewhat conflictedly. My first instinct was positive - I'm in favor of tools for content people, and while I don't think we've interacted I've seen her around on women's issues and liked her work - but there was clearly a lot of history that I didn't know enough about for an early support. And a lot of the oppose comments really are troubling - especially Folantin's (where I agree with Montana on the merits) and Bishonen's (where I disagree, and where the problem resonates with concerns I had based on Montana's occasional comments on the current GMO dispute). But, all that said, she's intelligent and thoughtful and confident, she seems to be hearing the feedback she's getting, and we could surely use more admins with good judgment on women's issues. So I guess that's a whole lot of stream-of-consciousness in order to say basically "per Floquenbeam". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I've read through the opposes and see a lot of old grudges and sour grapes. The AfD "hit rate" opposers should be discounted. Montanabw has a long history of sound decision making, many times as a leader of community consensus.[26]. Further, the hit rate metric is skewed and does not take into account that AfD consensus is often ephemeral and changes over time. Her numbers indicate someone who thinks critically about an issue and isn't easily swayed by groupthink, an important and desired trait in an admin. So opposing her based on her AfD hit rate is wrong, and I ask that the closer take this into account during the final analysis. Finally, I want to speak about my personal experience interacting with the candidate. I believe we first edited in the Silicon Valley topic area, where our interests randomly intersected on the Varian pages. I came away from that experience knowing that this candidate represented the true face and values of Wikipedia at its best, warts and all, and I continued to enjoy interacting with her in the animal topic area (where she was under attack for many years with little help), as well as DYK and other places. Looking back at the last decade, it would be difficult for me to find a more suitable candidate. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Please see oppose #41 below. In violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, she used an IP and her account to make consecutive reverts at articles (see Q 24), but never officially claimed the IP as her own, nor did she come clean when asked about it here (see Q 11). I also oppose due to her terrible AfD record, refusing to answer good-faith questions (see #10, 17, and 18), has demonstrated why she wants the tools, but not why she needs them, especially the answer to question #13, in which she says she'd only use them "sporadically". But most of all because multiple editors have agreed that Montanabw was stalking me for several months. Here's a few examples, and I have others that I could share. Sitush: "OK, I've done some digging around and it looks like all of this stuff from Montanabw may be an extension of her ongoing stalking and feud with Rationalobserver and Dr Blofeld."([27]) Dr. Blofeld: "Stop stalking RO and acting like a 7 year old school girl bully around her waiting to pounce on her edits and inviting others to criticize her work".([28]) Sitting arbitrator Yunshui also thought Montanabw had targeted me: "I'm not disagreeing that you have been targeted by other editors (or editor; I think we all know who we're talking about here), and that's to their shame".([29]) I also have a major concern that she's been mislabeling edits as vandalism that aren't, and I think a good candidate for admin should have a strong understanding of what is and what isn't vandalism. Particularly when "blocking obvious vandals" is a primary reason for wanting adminship. Most concerning, though, is her propensity to take sides and display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. She doesn't need the tools, and she really can't be trusted with them either. RO(talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Extensive discussion moved to talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Rationalobserver's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- More of the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion that continued after the one above was moved. Epic Genius (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose The candidate has a terrible AfD record, and insufficient grasp of the deletion policies and guidelines. Also, she casts indiscriminately "keep" !votes at women's topics, and when in fear of not to get it her way, assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dating Violence Awareness Week. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Kraxler's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too in the thrall of the cult of Corbett for me. No credibility. --Drmargi (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt Montanabw has ever even heard of him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- See User talk:Montanabw/Archive 7. (Not that I agree with the postulate.). NE Ent 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt Montanabw has ever even heard of him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose, primarily due to temperament issues—specifically, long-term ownership behavior at WP:EQUINE (which drove me elsewhere when I first began editing actively here) and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (again, long-term) which is incompatible with adminship. Miniapolis 13:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, I don't like doing this, but I'm going to have to oppose for three main reasons. For one, as some people have mentioned already, I've seen irregular tactics at AfD and battleground mentality are a cause for concern. Secondly, I've witnessed various personal feuds with other editors in the past, and finally, the attempt of ousting out RO's physical location in what was considered "stalking". This is a grave concern. I hope that by having the tools she won't attempt to oust out other people's locations in believing that they were socks. I was involved in this briefly, so for those who don't know, I'll lay out some diffs:
- Me on 11 April at the "Attempted ousting" ANI disccusion: "...This appears to be an attempted outing on RO and it may be supported through this diff "RO edited, logged out and and geolocated to Las Vegas" and also editing patterns appearing similar. I am very concerned that this is polemic and an attempt to find out RO's physical location"
- Here's Dennis Brown: "At some point, you need to pull back or you are just harassing an editor".
- Here's me: "This is stalking and harassment"
- Here's Liz: "it's also important when, proven wrong, to let it go and stop trying to prove that they are guilty. That can eventually bring on charges of harassment or stalking." JAGUAR 16:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. (Moved from neutral.) Jaguar's "oppose" statement pushed me over the edge. I cannot support a candidate with so many recently-proven instances of failing to assume good faith. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I am not comfortable with the existence of User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. This page looks like a grudge hitlist of sorts. This page really needs to be off-wiki, or at least deleted from here. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- ...Looks like the page User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox is here to stay though. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I am not comfortable with the existence of User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. This page looks like a grudge hitlist of sorts. This page really needs to be off-wiki, or at least deleted from here. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting this candidate. As pointed out by another !voter above me, I looked through Montanabw's AfD record and, despite the inevitable objections which will arise, she does seem to invariably !vote keep on any topic relating to women/feminism/third-world nations, and multiple times the final result was delete. For this reason, I fear that she would have an unhealthy bias whenever taking administrative action related to these topics. She also seems to have a difficult time just letting go of previous disputes or grudges, as shown by the years-long compilation of diffs at User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. I also seem to personally recall an encounter between her and SMcCandlish last year (it was something about an RM for a goat breed, which I unknowingly got involved in by closing the discussion), and I was less than impressed with her handling of the situation. As shown by Jaguar, I'm also disturbed by her treatment of RO, and in particular her attempt to make it well-known that RO edited while logged out and that it geolocated to a particular place. This very much calls into question her conduct when involved in disputes. --Biblioworm 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose- Because of the campaign against RO, and the weird erroneous keep votes pointed out by Kraxler. Reyk YO! 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Total oppose per the overkill campaigning, harassment, ownership, and skirmishing noted above. Wikipedia is never a replacement for a stress ball. Esquivalience t 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose One of the primary functions of admins is to reduce drama. Montanabw orbits it like a moth to a flame. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've seen her take some bone-headed positions, most usually rushing to somehow back up one of her wiki-friends she perceives needs support, jumping in with passionate argument but basically consisting of nothing more than thoughtless conceit and insult. Do we really need/want an admin of that nature?? She called me a "Randy" [30] when I questioned one of her wiki-friends who was indirectly calling me a "narcissist". (My editing skill and knowledge of WP has not been perfect, like most editors it has evolved and improved over my editing history, but I don't believe I've qualified for "Randy" label re any WP article. Please explain the basis for calling me a "Randy", Montana.) I think I remember her musing to become admin based on idea to balance out the Wikicop/civility-obsessed admins who like to block Eric Corbett. (That seems more like war mentality, than simple battleground.) IHTS (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone above - I can't support giving the mop to someone who has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, Constantly !votes Keep on every single women-related AFD, and cannot let let go of disputes, In all I think handing the mop to this editor who quite honestly be a disaster!. –Davey2010Talk 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Man am I disappointed. Earlier today I was looking at your user page, thinking you might be a fun dinner date, feeling warm and fuzzy at the prospect that soon two of the four most recent promotions would be women (a 50% ratio!), but then a few things I saw started pricking some holes in my bubble. So I reluctantly concluded that I would need to do some due diligence. I'm truly sorry, my search of the Administrator's Noticeboard turned up 96 hits. I don't need to go into details, as the section headers speak for themselves. I didn't have the stomach to glance through more than a few of them. For comparison, searching on myself, I only found 15 hits. And mine are just mostly routine stuff: some testing that I mentioned in my RfA, a report about one of my bots' predecessors being down, adding a permalink for reference, etc. One substantive discussion I noticed was about conduct relating to my RfA, which I wasn't even aware of until I just looked at it. I can grant a few passes, but sorry, this is way more drama than I can handle. I hope the community doesn't hate me for this. SO SO sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Wbm1058's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou for moving the extended discussion. Subsequently I've seen that she was added to the 2014 notification log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience § Enforcement log. While I do see at least a couple of administrators on that list, there are far more subsequently blocked editors there. Not a good place to find a prospective admin's name. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Wbm1058's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose quite disturbed that any admin candidate already has a long standing feud going on before they even started and the afd failures are just not what is required for someone with the delete button. Unsurprisingly, I find Kraxler's oppose compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: I hardly ever participate in RFA's but I remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale for the keep !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa. Otherstuff is an argument frequently seen from the creators of articles up for deletion and new users. I would expect an experienced user to dig deeper when they are "surprised" by the amount of content on an obscure subject, not use it as a rationale for keeping said content, regardless of the article subject's gender or geographical location. Vrac (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I rarely ever oppose an RfA candidate, but in this case I can't ignore what Kraxler has said. Aside from the obvious bias present in the keep rationale, far too many of the articles ended up being deleted anyway. The answer to question 15 failed to swing me to support or even neutral simply because this behavior gives me a clear indication you are not the kind of editor I would want with the tools, irrespective of whether you would actually take part in AFD in an administrative capacity. —Frosty ☃ 03:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As others have said and I have personally seen, the candidate habitually !votes keep on AfD's related to women. While countering systemic bias is an admirable goal, you can't use that as a blanket reason to keep non-notable articles. Conifer (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to say anything here, but having viewed a few of the articles which she voted "keep" on which got deleted in all honesty I don't think it's her fault, I think it's actually often the fault of the others at the AFD that they got deleted. I've checked a few of the ones she supposedly blundered on and in my book they meet content guidelines and should not have been deleted. The AFD process is deeply flawed, without good content contributors trying to save them we'd lose even more decent articles. I've lost count how many times people have blindly voted "delete, non notable" and then myself or Aymatth2 or MichaelQSchmidt have expanded something and them changed their vote to "keep". I'd be interested to see a list of the ones she voted keep on which got deleted and how many in fact should not have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thats why I said in my comment above that AFD should not be closed by counting !votes. Wikipedia is not democracy, I think only RFA is done by counting votes otherwise no need to count the votes in AFD, closer should judge rational in "keep" comments even if they are 2 in number it should be closed as "keep" even if "delete" votes are 6.--Human3015TALK 08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to say anything here, but having viewed a few of the articles which she voted "keep" on which got deleted in all honesty I don't think it's her fault, I think it's actually often the fault of the others at the AFD that they got deleted. I've checked a few of the ones she supposedly blundered on and in my book they meet content guidelines and should not have been deleted. The AFD process is deeply flawed, without good content contributors trying to save them we'd lose even more decent articles. I've lost count how many times people have blindly voted "delete, non notable" and then myself or Aymatth2 or MichaelQSchmidt have expanded something and them changed their vote to "keep". I'd be interested to see a list of the ones she voted keep on which got deleted and how many in fact should not have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Montanabw's contribution to the encyclopedia, especially her content work and her passion for the project as a whole. But, there are too many red flags for me, and I don't think bestowing the admin toolset is the right thing to do at this time - sorry. Please, Montanabw, continue your outstanding work here! — sparklism hey! 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm here after much hesitation, as I used to like Montanabw a lot — as somebody said, you get a warm feeling reading her userpage — and in many ways I still do. Several of my socks are fond of her.[31][32] But I had a contretemps with her in 2014 where I thought she behaved terribly — not towards me by any means — but IMO loyalty with a friend caused her to treat an opponent of that friend like dirt. I believe her actions were part of the reason the user in question left Wikipedia in frustration for a time, requesting a self-requested block from me (he has no other blocks, although Montana was under the impression he had, wouldn't check when he protested, and made much play with these imaginary blocks). An admin really shouldn't have friends in the sense of protecting certain people at the expense of running roughshod over others, and that's the reason I'm dubious about giving this candidate the tools: she's too loyal a friend. I don't like to oppose. She's a great content contributor and a very pleasant person to those she likes — but this is about adminship. I think Montana knows what I'm talking about, even though it was quite long ago. Montana, if you want to take issue with my description, I will of course give diffs so others can decide for themselves. It would be nice if anybody else who's curious took it to e-mail and I'll respond fully, but that's obviously not up to me. If there has to be detailed and inevitably painful discussion of the episode, we should probably take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Would you mind posting link(s) to the discussion that you referred to? Also, do you believe it is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behavior? I ask only because I respect your opinion, and would like to make sure I haven't missed anything important.- MrX 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. You're right, MrX. I've provided the diffs with some commentary by me on the talkpage, as I probably should have done immediately (it's painful, that's all, and also pretty old). I ask anybody who wants to comment on my oppose to please take it there, too. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Would you mind posting link(s) to the discussion that you referred to? Also, do you believe it is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behavior? I ask only because I respect your opinion, and would like to make sure I haven't missed anything important.- MrX 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I really didn't want to be here. She's an intelligent, productive content creator and we need a lot more of those but the more I think about the partisanship I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, the less comfortable I am with her having the block button. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose because of her extreme WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, as others have noted. Montanabw is a frequently belligerent editor who divides Wikipedians into friends and enemies. I had a run-in with Montanabw about two years ago and I've been trying to avoid her ever since. Then this July I happened to have a [33] disagreement with one of her friends on an article Montanabw had never touched before. Montanabw turned up out of the blue, guns blazing, accusing me of being "one of the most mean-spirited people I've encountered in nine years of editing wikipedia" among other things [34]. She managed to turn what had been a minor (and resolved) disagreement into a full-out flame war. Uninvolved editors were also less than impressed by her behaviour there. I make no comment on the quality of her content work, but she is not admin material. This incident happened only a couple of months ago. Update: additional information regarding timing As far as I can see, Montanabw sparked off the conflict on Talk:Joseph (opera) on 6 July 2015 [35], the very same day she began her preparations for this Request for Adminship [36]. There's quite a contradiction in her behaviour and opinions on those two pages. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. Quoting Montana blundering in to tag-team, blindly standing up for her mate and bullying and insulting the article's main author and boasting about her clean block log and untouchablity (from the first link above): "Folantin, as I say, this article is not worth the waste of bandwidth and you can own it for all I care. But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others. I watch Gerda's edits to help protect her from people who unjustly attack and try to play "gotcha!" with her. (I also keep an eye on Eric Corbett for similar reasons). So, all I am going to say on this topic is that I now hope we understand each other. And, incidentally, I have never been subjected to arbitration sanctions of any sort (other than those applied generally to all users/participants), I have never been blocked or restricted in any way on wikipedia, so if you want to go after me, I wouldn't make book on your chances of doing anything more than wasting your time. Montanabw"
She's accusing him of ownership because he expressed a preference not to have an infobox on the article. Ironic, because the consistent pattern I've seen in my limited contact with her is one of fierce ownership of her articles and defence of her mates' ownership of theirs.
This is starting to look like a very serious behaviour problem here. Very. I urge others to follow that link --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I looked, and no, that's not even close to a serious behavior problem. It seems like a reasonable response to Folantin's demand
"I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it..."
. I really hope we are not trying to build the admin corps with shallow, emotionless automatons.- MrX 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)- Admins are supposed to resolve conflict, not create it - especially not because of personal grudges. Note the context: "I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it..." was addressed to Gerda Arendt. Gerda and I have a personal understanding that we don't try to impose our stylistic preferences on articles either of us create. Hence Gerda's note here [37]. In other words, we had resolved the situation before Montana came barging in with her WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, threats and personal attacks.--Folantin (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- On May 30, 2015, this motion was approved by ArbCom. It put Gerda Arendt under probation and stated clear rules of how to proceed. Both Folantin and Gerda proceeded according to the rules. User:Montanabw's butting in could not possibly have helped Gerda's cause, since under the circumstances (accusations and attacks) no "clear consensus" (as required under the probation rules) could be established. I see here again that Montanabw has an insufficient grasp of the meaning of simple rules, and suffers from severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Tag-teaming, making threats and calling somebody "one of the most mean-spirited people" makes Montanabw totally unsuitable for adminship. I amend my !vote accordingly. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Clarification: I had no "cause" that needed help, nor would I ask for help. - Joseph (opera), as Rigoletto and Don Carlos, was one of the articles where an infobox had been reverted in 2013, - we have these articles on our watchlists, - there's no magic "out of the blue" or tag-teaming. - I only wanted to check how things were in 2015, with all operas by Verdi now having an infobox, and I can take no for an answer. - I regret that I didn't check the article history, the name Folantin would have told me an answer. - It would have saved us a lot of heat in this RfA. So again: Blame me. - Peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- On May 30, 2015, this motion was approved by ArbCom. It put Gerda Arendt under probation and stated clear rules of how to proceed. Both Folantin and Gerda proceeded according to the rules. User:Montanabw's butting in could not possibly have helped Gerda's cause, since under the circumstances (accusations and attacks) no "clear consensus" (as required under the probation rules) could be established. I see here again that Montanabw has an insufficient grasp of the meaning of simple rules, and suffers from severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Tag-teaming, making threats and calling somebody "one of the most mean-spirited people" makes Montanabw totally unsuitable for adminship. I amend my !vote accordingly. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Admins are supposed to resolve conflict, not create it - especially not because of personal grudges. Note the context: "I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it..." was addressed to Gerda Arendt. Gerda and I have a personal understanding that we don't try to impose our stylistic preferences on articles either of us create. Hence Gerda's note here [37]. In other words, we had resolved the situation before Montana came barging in with her WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, threats and personal attacks.--Folantin (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I looked, and no, that's not even close to a serious behavior problem. It seems like a reasonable response to Folantin's demand
- Wow. Quoting Montana blundering in to tag-team, blindly standing up for her mate and bullying and insulting the article's main author and boasting about her clean block log and untouchablity (from the first link above): "Folantin, as I say, this article is not worth the waste of bandwidth and you can own it for all I care. But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others. I watch Gerda's edits to help protect her from people who unjustly attack and try to play "gotcha!" with her. (I also keep an eye on Eric Corbett for similar reasons). So, all I am going to say on this topic is that I now hope we understand each other. And, incidentally, I have never been subjected to arbitration sanctions of any sort (other than those applied generally to all users/participants), I have never been blocked or restricted in any way on wikipedia, so if you want to go after me, I wouldn't make book on your chances of doing anything more than wasting your time. Montanabw"
- Oppose. While pleased by all that content work, her record on AfDs is poor, showing lack of judgment that is necessary for adminw. Sorry, until administrator positions are no longer effectively lifetime super-user posts, these kinds of issues will be dealbreakers. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Like numerous other editors who have commented, I have great respect for the candidate's editing, and I very much wish that I did not end up in this section. I think that Dennis Brown's analysis in the neutral section hits the nail on the head. In some recent ANI comments, [38], I see some things that trouble me: hastiness in saving the comments, but more importantly hastiness in coming to (incorrect) conclusions about editors coupled with a lack of hesitation to impose a cool-down block on the wrong editor. I appreciate what Montanabw has said here about INVOLVED, but I worry that over time there will be problems nonetheless. In her answers to questions, she indicates that she mostly wants to use administrative tools for gnomish work, but I have to ask why an editor with such extensive experience in substantive matters would suddenly become interested in only doing some routine and backstage tasks, and I doubt that she would refrain from becoming involved in more heated areas. I very much look forward to the candidate continuing her excellent editing work, but I just feel that administrative work would be a bad fit. Again, I'm very sorry to be saying these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, regretfully. I have respect for your long-term tenure and contributions to Wikipedia, but I'm concerned by a few things. First and foremost, the details expressed by others definitely reveal a history of consistent inappropriate conduct and the assumption of bad faith beyond what can be considered simple mistakes (which are completely normal and expected; nobody is perfect). This conduct is not compatible with the behaviors required in order to be a successful administrator who is trusted to use the tools in a neutral sense, perform blocks only in a preventative measure, and have the respect of the community. I fear that the tools may be used in a controversial manner if the "right situation" occurs, and when reasonable evidence is brought forward that calls this into question, it should put a "pause button" on anyone's vote (even if it's slight). Your AfD history isn't great, and does need improvement (as pointed out by the others). I'm almost taken back by your answer to Q9 as well, as I don't believe that a web search is necessary to assert whether or not the example article meets A1. Sorry to pile on, but I must oppose for these reasons. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I too have battleground concerns. I do not think I have ever opposed, based even in small part on personal interaction but you arrived at Talk:Lincoln Park Zoo to accuse and insult, having shown no prior interest in the article, nor knowledge of its history, but just to denigrate me over a small thing of which template to use, and in the process did not even initially try to understand the concern raised. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unhappy to oppose, as I actually came here with the intention of supporting, but the exchange at Talk:Joseph_(opera) is just too much, too recent, also too nonsingular. If you really want to use that kind of energy in a dispute, at least don't waste it on something as irrelevant as the infobox-debate. Obviously a very valuable content contributor, always a plus in my book, but I don't want our admins to handle conflicts like that. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am very sorry to oppose, because I respect Montanabw as a valuable editor here, and I have never had an unpleasant interaction with her. But I just don't think she has the temperament to be an administrator. The many examples given here of BATTLEGROUND behavior, OWNERSHIP issues, and lack of CIVILITY make me fear that she is not cut out to be an administrator. Admins need to be able to see all sides of an argument, remain neutral (and be perceived as neutral) in battleground situations, and remain calm and polite under criticism. I just don't see those abilities in this editor. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per Anthonyhcole (consistently "partisan" is the word I was looking for, thanks); Bishonen; Folantin; others. (For anyone who associates my username with the "infobox debate", I can tell you that I would never oppose a candidate over such ultimately minor preferences unless the related behaviors themselves were a concern. This is the first RFA I've contributed to in years(?) and I do not oppose comfortably or easily.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – I have no doubt that Montanabw is an excellent contributor to this site with an extended tenure. One could definitely argue she's a net positive, as evidenced by the support in this RfA. However, the battleground mentality and civility issues brought up by multiple users are cause for considerable concern. Taking sides is not the job of an administrator and doing so can undermine the integrity of one who yields the mop (yes it's not a big deal to have the mop in general...but when there are concerns over a candidate's ability to remain level-headed and neutral, that argument is rendered null in my opinion). Dennis Brown aptly analyzed what I believe many of us here see in the candidate in his statements in the neutral section. Again, the candidate is a wonderful content creator and her work is greatly appreciated but I don't feel that the administrator role is the right place for her. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I want first to make two things perfectly clear: 1) MontanaBW is a content provider and reviewer par excellence and I personally have the very best of collaborative relations with her. 2) I was aware that this RfA would be coming sometime soon and I had already drafted an 'oppose' rational, hence my vote is in no way influenced by those of other participants. However, it is not a coincidence that so many in this section (and neutral) are echoing the reasons I had listed in my original draft. I have seen Montana around as long as I can remember, and I have been around for getting on for 10 years and I have always been impressed by her content and the assistance she has provided to others whom I have referred to her for help. On the other hand, I have always been saddened by her frequent brash and snarky outbursts which, together with a staggering almost 400 edits to this talk page, the least of which are about collaborating on WP articles and policies, are the elephant in the room; I think that she doesn't always realise that snark is far from always the result of a bear being being poked - some bears are actually quite happy to do the poking and provoking and to defend them might be misplaced. There is just too much drama feeding, and many of her comments lead me to believe that she might not be able to be 100% objective and impartial when judging issues in the capacity of sysop at ANI or closing AfDs. I am really sorry to oppose, but I firmly believe that Montana does not have the right temperament for adminship and would be happier just continuing her superb work in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose regretfully. I came to this RfA very hopeful, as my few interactions with the candidate had been very positive. I have tremendous respect for their content work, something which I hope some day to emulate. However, the doubts (and diffs) about their temperament have been concerning enough that I have to vote here. Passion is a great thing, in some places; areas where admin work are required are not among them. Rather than any specific thing, I am seeing a general tendency to be pushy, a la BATTLEGROUND. Even on this RfA, I found myself wondering at the frequent second or third replies to questions, which suggests an unwillingness to let things go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - just from links in the above comments, I've seen more than enough evidence of battleground mentality, maintenance of grudges, and general prickliness, for this to be a clear-cut oppose. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As far as I can remember, I've never had any interaction with her - but I have seen her around the drama boards. I had a vague impression from that was she was usually a protagonist rather than a resolver, which prompted my curiousity to look at the various diffs cited here. As a result, I feel the same way as Stfg. The issue and diff highlighted by Sluzzelin seems to me to present a theme which is a common thread of many of the concerning diffs and is at the core of why it would be worrying for her to be an admin. DeCausa (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The worst thing an admin could be is to have an brash and unweilding attitude. There's passion in this person but not the calmness towards other other editors that should come aside it. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear; this is very much the most difficult decision i shall make today, after what to eat for lunch. For so many reasons i want to support this candidacy: I admire the nominator as one of the admins most dedicated to the project, with its best interests at heart, so i'd like to trust his judgement; the candidate fully understands why we are here, and has made huge contributions towards that end, albeit in areas i wouldn't (to me, a horse is a horse, of course); we need more admins to help progress the project, admins who understand it and its labyrinthine ways. Unfortunately, it is clear that there are issues which speak to one particular point in my criteria for admins: The candidate, while understanding the purpose of the project, doesn't seem to understand the means ~ we are a community of people, working together to achieve the goal, and anyone who does not respect the community, the humans behind the accounts, who divides those people into friends and foes, is not a good fit for the admin toolset. Particularly worrying were the set of diffs given by Bishonen and the outburst on the Joseph talkpage. I greatly regret finding myself here. Cheers, LindsayHello 13:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Moved from Support.) The candidate has a long history of pointlessly escalating conflicts involving her wiki-friends. Volunteers' time is precious, and drama such as candidate's wastes it. Townlake (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose! This is someone who should NEVER have power over others. Her behavior is already completely overbearing and combative. She edit wars everything. My experience of trying to negotiate with her in the John Walsh (U.S. politician) article was truly unpleasant. I think she consistently edited with a political agenda to sanitize, bury or minimize what we reported about the subject's plagiarism scandal. I think she liked Senator Walsh and I don't think she was able to separate that. But what really made it unpleasant was the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I simply can't imagine Montanabw being able to step into a conflict and help deescalate or resolve it. She simply doesn't present those skills. I don't think she shows much ability to hear or respect others' opinions. Personally, I avoid her and would think twice about contributing anything anywhere I think I might run into her simply because life's too short to waste it in conflict with difficult people. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many drama llamas. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Townlake (both votes), iridescent, Floquenbeam, Kraxler, Miniapolis, Jaguar, Biblioworm, Esquivalience, Conifer, Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, Folantin, Coretheapple, MelanieN, Cyclonebiskit, Kudpung, Msnicki, Ritchie333, and Dennis Brown. When there are this many 'alarm bells' going off, it behooves us to listen to them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, Strange, though I agree with much of what iridescent write; my conclusions are the opposite. Pr Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, regretfully oppose, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose I had several strange and very unpleasant run-ins with MontanaBW. She is highly proprietary about Montana historical articles, with a very heavy hand on the delete button, especially if it disturbs her political sensibilities. The idea that a political conservative like me could add details on cattlemen was unacceptable. That was bad enough, but it escalated out of control twice. Here on Wikipedia she made slashing personal attacks on me in Sept. 2013 at [[[Talk:Labor unions in the United States]]. I complained to ANI when she called me a liar, alleging I falsified my connection to Montana State University (she did not notice I was listed on the MSU website. (For the record then and now I am an official Research Professor of History at Montana State U--Billings). Then in summer 2014 I was involved in a Montana State University Library project: a one-day training program for newbies on how to edit Wikipedia. She immediately for no reason erased the first efforts by a leading expert from the Montana historical society who was attending this workshop and was adding material on the fur trade an area of his specialty. She demanded and threatened to be admitted to the closed workshop. The library director alerted campus security to keep her out (the good news is that she never showed). Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rjensen, I would say have to say that your version of events likely borders on fantasy. The irony of you complaining about others having a "heavy hand on the delete button" does not go unnoticed, considering you always delete/revert, and rarely if ever discuss first, unless dragged kicking and screaming to the talk page. When you speak of Montana's "political sensibilities", we see a bit of needed honesty from you. Yes, you oppose Montana because her moderate, centrist POV is at odds with your extreme, right-wing POV-pushing. That's true. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose blackballed since forever. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per evidence above, ownership and battleground issues rule this request out. TheOverflow (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Another one who came here with an open mind per MontanaBW's excellent contributions, but this? Really? Sorry, no. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral, leaning weak oppose.Moved to oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Wikipedia:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Wikipedia:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the WP:XFD forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REFUND) are all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in participating in consensus-based discussions or being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)- The answer to Q13 is putting me on the edge of changing my vote. If there is not a major drive or the need to use the tools, then why should they be granted? It seems that less than 5% of the existing administrators are active in performing administrative tasks; I'd rather not contribute to making that percentage lower than it already is. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am curious why you feel that the relative percentage is more important than the absolute quantity. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to meet certain admin activity requirements beyond a basic level required to maintain competence (awareness of policy developments, etc). She does indeed say, "I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop". Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others. — Earwig talk 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The question is why would you give the tools to someone who will only need them sporadically. RO(talk) 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- My answer to that is, as above, "Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others." The only exception to that I can think of is if their infrequent actions are poor (due to, e.g., inexperience) that they cause problems and other users need to spend time reviewing them. Given Montanabw's consistent activity over nearly ten years, I can't see that applying here. — Earwig talk 02:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To me, stating that they have seen "a need" doesn't equate to them having the experience and knowledge of going through the proper channels and forums that exist on Wikipedia. If a need is found, it should be reported on the proper board as soon as possible so that an existing administrator can resolve the issue, and so its existence can be validated for our fellow editors who don't have the privilege of being an administrator and only have the option of reporting it. I'm honestly a bit tired of seeing an editor being granted the admin tools, but doesn't have the drive to manage or understand the boards that existing administrators monitor and assist ... which I have found is usually due to lack of experience participating on them as a "requester." Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps if you had not had an edit conflict, you would have noticed that Earwig points outThe candidate has been editing for 10 years in March. I am pretty sure she's filed many requests at the various boards over time, and has no lack of experience in doing so. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)- I saw the edit ratios, and even noticed that the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is over 3000. Experience may be there, but since that namespace is not even
in the top 4 of their most-edited namespaces10% of their total edits, it doesn't seem to be a focus of theirs. (However, I found a different reason for opposition, so I'm sticking where I moved my vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I saw the edit ratios, and even noticed that the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is over 3000. Experience may be there, but since that namespace is not even
- The question is why would you give the tools to someone who will only need them sporadically. RO(talk) 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am curious why you feel that the relative percentage is more important than the absolute quantity. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to meet certain admin activity requirements beyond a basic level required to maintain competence (awareness of policy developments, etc). She does indeed say, "I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop". Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others. — Earwig talk 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The answer to Q13 is putting me on the edge of changing my vote. If there is not a major drive or the need to use the tools, then why should they be granted? It seems that less than 5% of the existing administrators are active in performing administrative tasks; I'd rather not contribute to making that percentage lower than it already is. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral I like Montanabw, she's a great editor and fun to be around, so I can't really bring myself to oppose right now, but I privately discussed nominating her for RfA myself in June and concluded I couldn't, partly because of the track record at AfD. As it stands today, it's just under 65% called correctly on 140 debates - that's just not quite enough to show a good understanding of basic inclusion policies and how to demonstrate them in an argument. Specific examples I raised previously are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karuna Institute (2nd nomination) ("Keep:Adequate notability established. Needs expansion, but that is not grounds for AfD. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors ("Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, the thing is two days old, for chrissake, let the creator work on it and expand it a bit.") both of which just sound too much like wanting to keep an article based on wishful thinking than improving it or supplying sources. Since my discussions with her, I now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities impacted by current sea level rise ("This article has a clear criteria for inclusion (cities currently affected and those having a plan to deal with it) and per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, it is a valid topic that will, no doubt, expand.") with exactly the same problem! These aren't the only examples, but the most obvious ones that come to mind. In short, I feel there is a serious risk that Montanabw will end up causing more drama and controversy than reducing it, simply by being herself. Sorry. Still, this RfA looks like a slam dunk pass, so what do I know? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: It's one thing to play AfD as a numbers game, and try to get one's AfD stats up by going with the existing !votes so that your own !vote will match the final close. It's another to be a courageous inclusionist and genuinely care about articles that one considers potentially useful or encyclopedic, and to go to bat for them. Folks can turn AfD stats into a weapon and claim that poor matches indicate someone who does not understand notability or policy and therefore someone who would make a bad admin or who would close XfDs against consensus. I'm not at all sure that follows. Being a heartfelt inclusionist does not necessarily mean that one would close XfDs against policy, and it certainly does not mean that one does not understand consensus. Having courageously unpopular opinions in AfDs is probably a good thing, and a sign of someone who thinks for themselves and is not playing a numbers game for the "stats". All of that said, I commend Ritchie for having this unpopular !vote/opinion, and if it has merit, I hope Montanabw takes it into consideration if and when closing AfDs and making other notability or other policy decisions. Cheers, Ritchie. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ritchie, don't you think she's smart enough to recognise consensus (or no consensus) and has integrity enough to close per that - regardless of whether she agrees with the outcome? (I do.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Most of the time, I think she'll be okay. It's more a gut feeling that every now and again there'll be one that results in a massive noticeboard thread somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am also uncomfortable about User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox - I appreciate that gathering evidence for an ANI or Arbcom case has merit, but this could easily be interpreted as "A list of people Montanabw doesn't get on with" ... keeping a log of editors you've butted heads with seems incompatible with the fairness and level headedness we expect from admins. I am certain I have either told her, or at least intended to tell her, to get the page deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please post a diff of you asking her to get it deleted or remove the statement as irrelevant. The community, or at least a small subset of it, endorsed the page at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI_sandbox; certainly there's nothing untoward of her keep a record of the times her own behavior was raised in dispute resolution forums. It's fair to ask her to remove out of date content and I shall do so forthwith. NE Ent 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note, Ritchie and NE Ent, that the ANI sandbox you have linked above contains material on only one user, who has had multiple identities, including a recent sock that resulted in an indef block on that user about a month ago. Like ItsLassieTime, I probably need to prepare a LTA for this user so that I can blank that sandbox. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please post a diff of you asking her to get it deleted or remove the statement as irrelevant. The community, or at least a small subset of it, endorsed the page at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI_sandbox; certainly there's nothing untoward of her keep a record of the times her own behavior was raised in dispute resolution forums. It's fair to ask her to remove out of date content and I shall do so forthwith. NE Ent 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - I don't question Montanabw's contributions to articles, which are tremendous. Her AFD record is cause for concern, but I would have to dig more and see why the percentage is so low before using that as a deciding factor. What puts me here is different. Montanabw would probably make a great lawyer because she knows how to be an advocate for a person or cause, and I think that is a very good quality for an editor here. Passion and persistence (to a degree) are helpful to move things forward and to insure that both sides of an argument are heard, but being an admin requires being able to step back, be less involved in the mix, and simply apply policy using experience and your belief in what a consensus of the community would agree to. I'm not sure she can make that transition. This isn't a negative statement on her character, quite the opposite in fact, but it can get in the way when you are an admin and that those same qualities that are helpful in hammering out difficult content, make you a lightning rod for drama and criticism when you are using the tools. There are a great many editors at Wikipedia whom I hold in high esteem, typically due to their content contributions, but that doesn't mean I think they would make great admin, often because the passion they show in editing (and sometimes fighting about that content) could get in the way if they had the tools. So for now, I'm here in the land of neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Kudos to Dennis for making a genuinely clueful and relevant statement here. I hope that M takes these words to heart, and steps way back when using the admin tools. Perhaps if she sticks to the mundane and the obvious for quite some time, and saves her passion and opinionatedness for non-admin edits and posts, all will be well. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral...This is a very tough call as I respect the noms greatly along with numerous supporters and opposers. I've worked tangentially with Montana (we share the same state of birth though I only lived in Montana as a child and off and on since), so our contributions overlap but I've never personally had any bad encounters with her and regard her a net positive in the arenas she works in. I generally lean to support female admins of which we have too few and always willing to overlook the occasional miscues, however the opposers have presented evidence that prevents me from supporting at this time. I think a six month period hence with no evidence of the issues mentioned by the opposition would land me in the enthusiastic support column.--MONGO 16:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral: I will neither support nor oppose my fellow Montana Wikipedian. Her contributions speak for themselves. I will however opine that I suspect there’s a good probability BW will stumble when it comes to civility on confrontational issues she gets involved in as an admin. BW has a propensity to become snarky and sarcastic unexpectedly during discussions where other editors might disagree with her. Example: [39]. This may be tolerable by an editor, but when it comes to admins, no matter what decisions they make, 50% of the participants are likely to disagree and engage and challenge the admin on the decision. There’s no doubt in my mind that BW is capable of good decisions in the best interest of WP, but I think confrontations as an admin will eventually get the better of her. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral I am truly undecided about this RfA. Montanabw is undeniably an enthusiastic and dedicated content creator. She eagerly helps editors that she views as comrades in arms in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. But being a superb editor is different than being a great administrator. I can't forget times when she pursued accounts she believed were sockpuppets to a greater degree than even CUers or clerks. Some might see these actions as a dedication to sockhunting but for those accounts that are not proven to be sockpuppets, it looks like harassment that can drive away new contributors. I also see a sort of score-keeping, as in Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore_infobox mentioned in Folantin's remarks. Wikipedia has suffered in the past from admins who held grudges and while Montanabw has been calm, cordial and polite in her conduct in this RfA (which is admirable!) I'm not sure she can let go of her penchant to come to the aid of those who are friends and have no sympathy for those she sees as less worthy. Administrators sometimes need to actively defend editors they dislike if their edits are on the right side of policy. Right now, my vote could go either way and, believe me, Montanabw, I know the next 5 days will seem like 50 days but they will help me make up my mind. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral I will, for full disclosure, say right now that my vote will not swing to support. I was at the receiving end of Montanabw's behavioral issues for too long for that to be possible. I do have to give her credit for finally deciding to behave civilly, and since then we have been able to colloborate fairly successfully on some articles, although her ownership and resulting dictatorial behaviors have continued to be a source of frustration to me. At that end, I posed question 14. She danced around the question, crafting her answers around her and my interaction, but finally said something that spoke volumes to me. When I pinned her down by asking: "Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues?" she responded "If there IS an actual problem." Seriously? I had, in my question, brought out this diff and other compelling evidence that there is NO DOUBT a problem. Since then this discussion was brought to light in which Montanabw stated: "But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others." O.M.G. Here is someone who, at the time was drumming up support for this rfa, was outright condoning ownership of articles. Non ownership of articles is a BASIC PREMISE of wikipedia, and here we have an editor that blatantly flouts that policy trying to become an admin. And, that's not the only policy I have seen her openly disregard. My observation is that, she feels entitled to disregard the rules of behavior, rules on civility, ownership, tag-teaming, admin-shopping, etc., in order to enforce the rules she believes to be more important, no OR, no close paraphrasing, no Synth., etc. Yes, she does write some good content, but her rigidness in insisting that the rules she wants followed be followed to the letter, combined with her attitude that that end justifies any means, is a big overall minus in my mind. And, she is oblivious to these issues. Go back to earlier in this paragraph. "IF there is an actual problem"???? I've seen so many support votes stating that, by giving her the tools, she will step up to the plate. I don't see how she can step up to a plate she can't even see. I agree with MONGO. She needs to acknowledge these issues, then work on them for at least six months, better a year. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)